plus 3 golfer

Two things: 1) Valkraider is correct in that physics dictates and that is all things being equal, flat will be better than hills (algorithms should find the best combination of ICE and EV on flat ground) and 2) one can perhaps find ways to attack hills to get better FE than one would otherwise get going up and down the hill. So, like Jus-A-Cmax says "do your own experimentation". But if one could duplicate the experiment on flat ground (same changes in speed, battery SOC and so forth as one goes up and down the hill), flat would likely win (the best one could hope for would be a tie). The goal would be to find the best way to attack a hill to maximize FE. I've said this before the PCM can't anticipate conditions. The algorithms run the C-Max on what is known in real time. But, we can anticipate conditions (grade, length of grade, max. and min speeds and so forth) and can perhaps find ways to achieve higher FE than otherwise would be achieved by letting the PCM run the car (eg, P&G vs eco-cruise, perhaps accelerate up some hills and slow down up others and so forth). Bottom line: if there is a choice between travelling hilly terrain vs flat terrain, I'd always pick the flat terrain all other things being the same. IMHO, the best one could hope for is a tie in FE. So, I see no reason to try to compare hilly FE with flat FE. If one routinely has hills to negotiate, I'd experiment and see what course of actions maximizes FE for a given hill and given charge level. If one had the BSFC map of ICE, one could see what power level and rpm would minimize fuel consumption and then attempt to run ICE at that level by varying vehicle speed to charge the battery while going up hill .

No. I have tried (although not recently) the Sync Voice Navigation and it worked great as it knew where I was as evidenced by being told when to turn. I'll try it again and see if it is any different. Edit: I just used SVN and it works fine. It knows exactly where I am along the route but the Where I Am coordinates place me 46.8 miles due East of my current location.

Thanks, I should have checked the MFT Supplement also But, here's the problem though and that is the owner's manual is dated later than the supplement. Here's what is says in the manual: I'll call CS as if the data is displayed, it should be accurate. Again though can those without NAV check to see what's in Where am I?

The SA got back to me and read an email from a Ford Engineer about my issue. Bottom line: it's not updated in cars without NAV. But I told the SA it changes as one drives and the latitude is correct but not the longitude. SA suggested I go through CS. So, I looked up Where am I in the manual and it says that cars without NAV nothing is displayed. Do others without NAV and MFT, have accurate coordinates and altitude displayed? Or is there nothing displayed?

On steep hills where the decent would require braking you would want to deplete the battery to the extent practicable going up hill so that at the top of the hill the battery is very low. So now the potential energy at the top of the hill will be converted to kinetic energy as you descend. Any excess kinetic energy can then be converted to electrical energy to recharge the depleted battery instead of otherwise being expended via the friction brakes had the battery been full at the top. Unfortunately, without a way to tell the PCM not to charge the battery going uphill this is probably not attainable except perhaps in the Energi with it's larger storage capacity. On gradual hills, you'd want to likely fully charge the battery going up hill when ICE is running most efficiently (we really need the BSFC curve but I assume Ford takes that into account when deciding where to run ICE). Then like you say, one can go a long way on a gradual downhill slope in EV mode. Of course in either case, there are conversion losses to consider but one should be able to figure out the best way to attack hills especially if one travels the route routinely and monitors the data to "save gas." But to answer your question I doubt one would see much difference between hills and flat if the hills are gradual and if speed was the same. As the hills get steeper, flat is better than hills.

I had a feeling you were thinking about heading North to the rim country. :) With my Jetta TDI DSG (direct-shift gearbox), I could descend the Salt River Canyon with very little application of the brakes by appropriately dropping down from 6th to as low as 3rd on some of the hairpin turns.

My build date was Nov. 19, 2012 and the FSA came up when I checked on May 26 after reading ArizonaEneri's post on ETIS. I did though formally register a complaint with Ford CS on the clock reset issue. I had 3.5.1 done yesterday. I also mentioned about my Where am I? longitude coordinate being about 1* off (I do not have Nav). Of course when I picked up the car, they gave me a story about how 3.5.1 probably solved this issue. So, I asked did you check the coordinates. The SA said no, so I said let's go check. I had the coordinates for the dealership from Google Earth plus my Garmin GPS. The SA couldn't believe that the longitude was so far off and said he'll call Ford today for an answer. I said what good is Sync services and Help if I'm stranded and give these as coordinates that are about 50 miles East of where I am. So, I'd suggest those without navigation to check Where am I against their GPS and Google Earth. I also had to re-pair my I-Phone. From what I recall from before, the displays have changed and it was much easier to do now.

The way I see it (but I haven't gone down any long steep hills) is the use of grade assist will provide regeneration (assuming battery is not full) where use of brakes may apply the friction brakes if pressed to hard. Supposedly, grade assist attempts to maintain speed going downhill. So, if speed is still to fast, one can also apply the brakes. If speed is too slow, one can disengage grade assist and coast to speed up or apply throttle. If one can feather the brakes so as not to apply the friction brakes, then it likely makes no difference whether one uses grade assist or brakes to slow down. We need someone to try such out. Eventually, I'll drive US 60 through the Salt River gorge or the Bee Line highway to Payson and give grade assist a try. Problem is that I will probably only have to go down a fraction of the grade before the battery is full and then will have to use L.

For the hybrid, if the engine is spinning when shifting to L, engine rpm will increase significantly just like a vehicle with a conventional transmission when one drops into a lower gear. If ICE was off (not spinning) when shifting to L, then ICE will start spinning. Thus, the increase in rpm acts as a load on the drivetrain (engine braking). There would be no additional regeneration. So, L for the hybrid should be the last choice to use to slow down. I would use grade assist first and then if not slowing down enough, apply the brakes to maintain desired speed. This should maximize the use of regeneration.

Generally, I find just the opposite especially is one gets a sales tax benefit by trading vs selling privately. It simply takes too long to find the "right" buyer willing to pay private party. Most want to "steal" your car. In AZ, there's an 8.8% sales tax is collected on dealer sales based on the difference between purchase price and trade-in value. That is generally very hard to make up in a private sale especially for a higher value car. For example, below is a snapshot of Edmund appraisal of my trade-in in outstanding condition. My car needed a new windshield, a wide, long, deep paint scratch fixed on the rear bumper (likely needed a respray of fender), 3 paint-less dent repairs, curb rash on 3 wheels repaired. I did have a clear bra. The dealer initially offered $13 k and I got him up to $14 k plus free tint on the C-Max (already on car plus I bought under X-Plan so no negotiation on price). IMHO, there was no way I could sell my car to a private party for $15,300 especially with the items above that needed to be fixed to get to outstanding condition. In about 2 weeks the dealer had my Jetta on his lot listed initially for $20,900 (probably offering some type of warranty also). Other dealers had similar TDIs listed for $17 - $19 k with similar mileage. We all know dealers will deeply discount used cars from original selling price. My car was gone in less than 30 days. I did stop in and took a look at my Jetta and it was "perfect". Everything was repaired. So, what's the chances had I invested say $700 for the above repairs, that I could have sold my car for $16k when Edmunds shows dealer certified retail for $16,600?? - slim to none.

This is what I did. It appears that fuelly doesn't use the first fuel up entry to compute mpg. So, you need to enter a "starter tank". So, since my car had 31 miles on it when I took delivery, My first entry into fuelly was 31 for the odometer reading and 0.001 gallon of fuel (I believe one can enter any value and it won't affect ones overall mpg). My 2nd entry then was my actual fill-up data. Now, my spreadsheet data corresponds with the fuelly data on miles and mpg since I began driving the car. Also, I believe you should have paid a fuel charge for a full tank upon purchase so the dealer should have topped off the tank while preparing the car for delivery. Check your invoice. But we really don't know.

Maintenance isn't free. You pay for it upfront in the price of the vehicle or when you perform the maintenance. If one looks at the maintenance schedule in the on-line owners manual, the maintenance required for 3 years / 36 k miles includes 3 oil changes, 3 tire rotations, 1 cabin filter change and 1 engine air filter change. Everything else listed in the maintenance schedule is inspection of the functionality of components and systems. One can buy the parts for this 3/36 maintenance for less than $150 in total (including about 15 quarts of Mobil 1 engine oil) . That's what I will spend. I prefer to DIY as then I can inspect my vehicle when I rotate tires and change oil and filters. Below is the "Special" my dealer advertises for an oil change, tire rotation, and inspections (seems to me I got something similar in the mail recently from the dealer for my first scheduled maintenance). You'll have to ask Ford why they chose not to include free maintenance with the purchase of the vehicle. IMHO, the free maintenance is a way to entice an owner to stay with the dealer for maintenance and repairs past the warranty period.

Pic look great. You could get clear uv film and put over the Lexan. It should also prevent the Lexan from scratching and likely be easier to clean.

Glad you like it. Certainly a lot of others do as well based on the reviews in the links below. For others, it appears one can order the best Intro-Tech roll-up one for $39.95 + free shipping here. My problem with roll-up ones in the past is that the roll-up ones becomes more difficult to get to lay flat as the shade seems to retain the curled up shape more and more over time (but maybe I just bought cheaper made ones). Also, I'd recommend others to check the Intro-Tech Ultimate fold-up one for $59.95 here. The Ultimate fold up one is made of 1/4 " foam board. It is very easy to install, take down, and fold up and lays flat on the console between the seats. My only concern will be it's life since in Phoenix it will get lots of use with 211 "clear" days a year and sunshine 85% of the time between sunrise and sunset. But it does appear to be well constructed. Time will tell.

Clean / replace the cabin air filter which should catch any debris that entered the fresh air intake duct. Debris should not have entered the blower fan.

SOC can also be significant especially on short trips. For example, two free miles (SOC drops from beginning to end of trip) on a 10 mile trip that would normally be 45 mpg (with the same beginning and ending SOC) would increase to 56.25 mpg (45*10/8). fotomoto, even round trips aren't the bottom line. The capability is what ones overall FE is over many miles (at least a tank). I do like the 600 mile and 700 mile tanks as that certainly gives a better picture of the C-Max capability. However, not many are achieving those on a consistent basis. 600 mile tanks can be achieved at less than a 45 mpg average (actual not the displayed mpg). Yet very few average 45 mpg (fuelly bar chart now shows 14 out of 191 at 45 or better and if I counted correctly 5 above 47). The point is that until such time as the average fleet approaches 47 mpg (I'll drop that to 44 mpg), one can show lots of pics of short, high mileage trips but I doubt skeptics will change to believers. Our opinions can differ about what is misleading. IMHO, if the fleet doesn't beat the Prius V average FE after one year, Ford misled the public. And I'm hoping the C-Max will beat the Prius V as virtually all reviews (as I do) give a significant edge to the C-Max in performance and comfort. But a quick look at about 300, 2012 and 2013 Prius Vs shows an average of about 42 mpg. The C-max needs to pick up about 3 mpg in about 5 months. :)

Somewhat like the "trick" question on the SAT: Car 1 and Car 2 travels from A to B and leave at the same time. For the first 1/2 of the trip, Car 2 travels at 10 mph slower than Car 1 and for the last 1/2 of the trip Car 2 travels 10 mph faster than Car 1. Which is correct? 1) Car 1 and Car 2 arrive at B at the same time. 2) Car 1 arrives at B before Car 2. 3) Car 2 arrives at B before Car 1 4) There's not enough information to determine which car arrives first. Time is proportional to the reciprocal of speed. MPG FE is proportional to the reciprocal of gallons. That's why I always say what matters in not ones FE on a specific trip but ones fuelly numbers and if one is going to post high FE numbers, at least do it for a round trip to negate elevation and other factors. This is also why in post 38 above, I posted a pic of my 69.1 mpg out trip and a pic of the overall round trip of 53.8 mpg knowing that if I posted a pic of the out leg showing 69.1 mpg and a pic of the return leg of 43.5 mpg (instead of the round trip) people would do a simple average of the legs which would be incorrect. Then, I asked which one accurately depicts the capability of the C-Max? I'll say this again in different words, if the purpose of this thread is to show others the capability of the C-Max, showing pics of high mileage, one way trips doesn't accomplish this. If it's for one's ego then fine. But, don't we really want to be credible for those contemplating the purchase of a C-Max. Is this thread really any different than Ford touting the EPA numbers? Time will tell whether the C-Max fleet will get close to the EPA numbers.

I thought most algorithms work from a stock timing map tuned for the required octane that is specified. So, if detonation is detected, the algorithm retards timing in increments until detonation is not detected. Then, over time and in steps advances timing back to the stock settings provided there is no detonation detected. In this way most cars that require premium fuel will run fine on regular as timing will be retarded should detonation occur albeit for a slight loss in performance. So, are you saying that in the C-Max the algorithm continues to advance timing past the stock timing until detonation is detected? This would be the first time I've heard of that.

Here's the link for the Intro-tech sun shade thread for those that might want to compare it with the roll-up type. I've had my Intro-tech for over 2 months and I wouldn't trade it for any roll-up one I've owned (includes several custom fit ones) + $59. It folds up easily (need to get the hang of which direction to start the fold) and fits between the seats on the center console. We normally just keep it in the passenger area even with my wife in the seat. :)

I can't think of a reason for Ford to fuel the engine if no additional engine torque is required when in L even though the engine is spinning. I believe you can look at fuel data in Engineering Test Mode and see Trip A and B fuel consumption to 2 decimal points in liters. Also, there is other fuel data displayed in counts? that continually changes when driving. So, one likely doesn't need a scan gauge to see fuel change. I'd test but there's no steep hill around that's long enough for me to make sure of the ETM readings. I could also record data on my laptop such as fuel, battery charge level, rpm but again I'd like a longer steep hill to test. The nearest suitable hill is about 15 miles away and I very rarely travel in that direction.

My lifetime average indicated FE = 41.7 mpg at about 5400 miles and my calculated FE = 40.65. So, that's an error of 2.6% too low using odometer miles. Now if I factor in my odometer error of 2.1% (odometer reads lower than actual miles at 1388 miles - the last time I checked), I would have to increase my calculated FE by 2.1% to get an accurate measurements - actual miles / actual fill-up gallons. So now my indicated FE is pretty close to my actual FE. :) Of course as my tires continue to wear, this will change. So, you might want to check your odometer against GPS / mileage makers for a number of miles to see if there is a significant error. Although I don't record indicated fuel used with each fill-up, when I check it's usually several tenths lower than the fill-up gallons of between 11 - 12 gallons. So, that might be on average around a 2% difference. Also, on my 2009 Jetta, I could change a multiplier to adjust the indicated FE in 1 % increments up to around +-10% total correction via a scan tool. So, it may be possible to adjust the calculation via the Ford diagnostic tool. It wouldn't hurt to ask the dealer although they would probably be reluctant to do so unless the error was significant. I doubt 5% would be considered significant. Also, in my VW I could change the distance impulse multiplier associated with the vehicle speed sensor (IIRC, around 10 different multipliers for different wheel / tire size combinations). So, I could correct for odometer error. Of course, this would also alter the indicated speed which was why many would change the multiplier to get a better indication of true speed since the needle on the speedometer usually showed fast by 2-3 mph at a true 70 mph or to correct the speedometer for oversize tire.

In normal Hybrid driving there's generally enough HVB available storage capacity for regeneration most of the time even when slowing from say 70 mph to zero. So, LEnergi operation would make sense. But, if one was going down a long steeper grade (which is generally why one uses engine braking), then it would make little sense to use LEnergi operation in the Hybrid since one would quickly fill the battery and have to use brake regeneration. Now in the Energi, it makes a lot of sense to use LEnergi operation before the brakes to simulate engine braking regeneration since there will likely be significant HVB available storage capacity in the Energi. Every time I've downshifted to L, engine rpm has always increased irrespective of the battery level although I don't recall the level being say below 25% or so. It would not surprise me if the Hybrid is "fixed" to engine braking only. While I'll bet the default for the Energi would likely be increased regeneration when shifting to L and perhaps if the HVB was near full, it would switch to engine braking. viajero, you can switch to EV later mode with a full battery and see what happens when you shift to L.

That's hard to believe there is a difference in operation. I would much prefer the Energi operation. With the hybrid there's a considerable braking effect when shifting to L - the engine rpm almost doubles. Others in thie thread have validated the increase in engine speed when in L and lower FE in L than D. I wonder why the difference in the use of L between the models.

I completely understand how the transmission works. Engaged = spinning, disengaged = not spinning. CVT=eCVT. The fact is the engine is spinning when in low. So, how does the spinning engine increase regeneration when decelerating?

I perused this thread and don't buy L increases regeneration while decelerating. The engine remains engaged in L when decelerating and thus uses kinetic energy that would otherwise be available for regeneration. So, how can one get more regeneration energy when in L then in D when the engine is not spinning and disconnected from the driveline when decelerating. There is less energy available to be regenerated using low when decelerating. To me it's physics.